Report Trump May Use National Guard to Round-Up Undocmented

Donald Trump just keeps coming up with bad ideas. This one's a non-starter unless he wants violence in the streets.

The Trump administration is considering a proposal to mobilize as many as 100,000 National Guard troops to round up unauthorized immigrants, including millions living nowhere near the Mexico border, according to a draft memo obtained by The Associated Press.

The 11-page document calls for the unprecedented militarization of immigration enforcement as far north as Portland, Oregon, and as far east as New Orleans, Louisiana.

If this idea originated with his advisers, they are morons. But we knew that already.

I suspect Trump is trying to stay in the news and making sh*t up to draw big headlines. Otherwise, no one would care enough to write or read about him.

< Friday Open Thread
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    The actual memo addresses this idea (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by Peter G on Sun Feb 19, 2017 at 03:04:04 PM EST
    in about one page of its 11 pages. It appears to be based on a dubious extension or application of an existing provision that allows a state government to agree to authorize its employees (apparently meaning the state police or similar) to assist ICE in enforcement duties. The draft then interprets this category of state employees to include the National Guard. I question the legality of any such ploy under the Posse Comitatus Act.

    wiki says (none / 0) (#2)
    by linea on Sun Feb 19, 2017 at 03:41:17 PM EST
    the posse comitatus act applies to the regular army not the state national guard.

    i dont understand how members of the national guard would have arrest authority. the article states:

    the federal 287(g) program allows specially trained local law enforcement officials to participate in immigration enforcement on the streets and check whether people held in local jails were in the country illegally. ICE trained and certified roughly 1,600 officers to carry out those checks from 2006 to 2015.


    The Army patrolling (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by MKS on Sun Feb 19, 2017 at 04:14:09 PM EST
    the streets looking for people to deport?

    Well, what does that look like?  Godwin's Law has been repealed.

    There are more than 10,000 (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by fishcamp on Sun Feb 19, 2017 at 04:48:50 PM EST
    Latinos, mostly Mexicans who live down valley from Aspen.  They work everywhere, grocery stores, restaurants, hotels, construction, and more.  Not many of them are legal, and everybody knows this.  If they started a roundup the city would be paralyzed.  Most resorts in Colorado are faced with the same problem.  I wonder how many illegals Trump has workiing in his empire?

    Aspen sounds like a microcosm (none / 0) (#15)
    by NYShooter on Mon Feb 20, 2017 at 12:09:15 AM EST
    for the entire U.S.

    Here's a question I've been asking for years: "Why is it that every Presidential Candidate runs on doing something about the 'illegal immigrant problem,' then does nothing about it once elected?"

    Answer: Because, once elected, the new President's economic advisors, actual experts on the economy, sit the new President down and give him a short primer on what would happen to our economy if he, in fact, actually stopped the 'illegals' from coming into the country. Basically, instant recession, if not, instant depression.

    The sad, but true, fact of the matter is that most of the jobs these, so called, "illegals," do are jobs "Americans," simply, will not do. And, please, don't argue with me over this, I've been doing business here over 40 years, and it is an irrefutable fact of life.


    Normally, I'd agree with you. (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Feb 20, 2017 at 03:30:57 AM EST
    Unfortunately, these are hardly normal times. Both this president and his immediate core of key advisors appear to be far more intemperate and ideologically motivated, than reasonable and logic-driven. And that presents us with a real quandary here. Your model holds its applicability only so long as we've elected a president who's at least somewhat mature and rational, and further surrounds himself with sober-minded policymakers, which has always been the case until now. Trump & Co. seem to be anything but that.

    What??? (5.00 / 2) (#20)
    by NYShooter on Mon Feb 20, 2017 at 05:18:17 AM EST
    Are you seriously suggesting that President Donald Trump is not "reasonable and logic-driven?" Nor, even "mature and rational?" Well, I'll be damned; you learn something new every day.

    Anyway, lol, of course you're right. What I meant was, "under normal circumstances (or a normal President.) The question then is, did Trump's economic advisors not tell him of the inevitable damage his expulsion & Wall nonsense would have on our country? Or, was it, knowing Trump's knee-jerk rejection of any sort of criticism, even factual, undebatable, criticism, they decided that keeping their mouths shut was the expedient way to go?

    Look, the fact that Donald Trump is an existential threat to the health and well-being of our country is no longer a "possibility." Four weeks in office should erase any doubts of that. The question is how do the Democrats (and reasonable Republicans) deal with it going forward? The cold reality is the Democrats did lose the election. That they didn't win by 30 points is something they should do some serious soul-searching over. "Not Trump" didn't work last November; I hope they have something better going forward. Electing Schumer and Pelosi for the leaderships in Congress does not indicate they learned anything about the mood of the electorate, IMO.


    At what price (none / 0) (#26)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Feb 20, 2017 at 08:52:01 AM EST
    do you think "Americans" will do these jobs and when will "business" offer it?

    Answers (none / 0) (#28)
    by FlJoe on Mon Feb 20, 2017 at 09:11:15 AM EST
    Too high and never, at least that's the only answers the precious "free market" can and will support and it's probably not a bad thing either.

    The free market has never been free (none / 0) (#29)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Feb 20, 2017 at 09:24:14 AM EST
    doing such things as not selling banned products and collecting taxes for the government.

    But if the border was shut down and if the remaining undocumented workers were given green cards, wouldn't the market have to increase wages as the labor pool is absorbed over time which would bring in both groups?


    What I find laughable (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by jondee on Sun Feb 19, 2017 at 05:16:54 PM EST
    is when the dedicated followers of the party of no minimum wage increases and Right To Work laws claim to support Trump's policy because it'll help the standard of living of American workers.

    Trump is the president, Jeralyn. (5.00 / 2) (#6)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sun Feb 19, 2017 at 05:24:38 PM EST
    Jeralyn: "I suspect Trump is trying to stay in the news and making sh*t up to draw big headlines. Otherwise, no one would care enough to write or read about him."

    He's no longer some carnival barker. It's therefore in our best interests to pay close attention to what he says and does.

    While many of his advisors may well be dimwits and ignoramuses, they also hold positions of real power and authority and can do us an awful lot of harm.

    Further, Steve Bannon is no moron. You are making a very grave mistake if you think that, and thus urge everyone to ignore this malevolent force in the highest echelons of the executive branch.

    Our country is clearly in harm's way. Please don't turn your back because you find Trump's presence somehow distasteful and nauseating, or further assume that Americans will necessarily turn out in force to repulse his sorry a$$, should he make good on his attempt to federalize the National Guard.

    Now is the time for extreme vigilance on all our parts. Aloha.

    California Gov. Brown and AG Becerra ... (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Feb 20, 2017 at 02:14:24 AM EST
    ... will likely file suit to resist any attempt by Trump to harness the state's own National Guard to carry out anti-immigrant policies which the state's leaders themselves are on record as opposing.

    The Sacramento Bee's Marcos Breton warns the state's prominent Latino political leaders that while state residents generally support them on an emotional level, their very best arguments in opposition to Trump's anti-immigrant crusade are actually on economic grounds:

    "[CA Attorney General Xavier] Becerra articulated the beginnings of an argument when he told The New York Times: 'Undocumented workers actually pay billions of dollars in taxes, something only flat-earthers try to deny these days. That's why every analysis of a comprehensive reform of our broken immigration system reveals that our nation and our economy would benefit from bringing the undocumented out of the shadows.'

    "Who disagrees with this argument? Jeff Sessions, the former U.S. senator who is now Trump's attorney general. Sessions consistently voted against comprehensive immigration reform. He is for issuing fewer green cards to legal residents. He contends immigrants take jobs away from Americans, and suck up a huge share of welfare dollars, when research shows otherwise.

    "One could argue that the Trump administration's immigration platform promotes a brand of nationalism that rejects the very multiculturalism that Becerra, de León and others rode to elective office. If this is true, California's leaders not only are taking on a formidable opponent - they are battling a foe that views them as the problem.

    "You can't fight that enemy by appealing to sympathy, because the enemy has none."

    Speaking as someone whose Mexican-American in-laws were once undocumented for the better part of two decades, it's very difficult to not be emotional on an issue as personal as this one. But that's exactly what we must be in the face of an opponent that shows no heart.

    Let emotion fuel our desire to oppose this inhumane policy. But our argument itself must be dispassionate in its appeal to people's pragmatism, reason and common sense.

    Any immigration policy underscored by anti-immigrant sentiment and bigotry is both myopic and foolish, because immigrants themselves are of bedrock importance to the socio-economic well being of the United States as a whole.

    Carrying out this mean-spirited program will cost this country very dearly, by severely damaging both our economy and our relationships with overseas markets, particularly in Mexico and the rest of Latin America.


    Not to mention (none / 0) (#22)
    by Coral on Mon Feb 20, 2017 at 06:32:25 AM EST
    the cost to our body politic. It would exacerbate divisions among an already extremely polarized nation.

    We're having marches in the streets weekly now, added to the Trump FL rally, as it is. What kind of protests and counterprotests would we see if people begin to be rounded up en masse?

    How far will this go?


    Fake news? (1.00 / 1) (#7)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Feb 19, 2017 at 07:37:30 PM EST
    A DHS official described the document as a very early draft that was not seriously considered and never brought to Homeland Security Secretary John Kelly for approval.


    Almost immediately after the Associated Press published its report, the White House issued a denial. "That is 100% not true. It is false," Press Secretary Sean Spicer told the media pool aboard Air Force

    LA Times

    No, not fake news at all (5.00 / 4) (#8)
    by Peter G on Sun Feb 19, 2017 at 07:39:34 PM EST
    It is a genuine draft, which was clearly labeled as such in the AP story that published it. News you aren't happy about is not the definition of "fake news."

    Yes not fake news (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Feb 19, 2017 at 11:08:02 PM EST
    But not likely to happen thank God

    Unfortunately have heard from active duty friends that Trump is demanding the 30 day ISIS solution he bragged about. He has no plan, but his numbers are in the septic so he has to produce some bigly stuff.

    Serving people very stressed, because there isn't a 30 day fix for ISIS. He continues to insist and demand so they are actually trying to put something impossible together.


    Tracy, are you sure about this? (none / 0) (#24)
    by NYShooter on Mon Feb 20, 2017 at 07:34:07 AM EST
    I thought he wanted The Plan in 30 days, not defeat ISIS in 30 days.

    I realize Trump isn't too competent, but even he couldn't expect to defeat ISIS in one month's time. Or, could he?

    Please let us know.


    The fake part is in the claim (1.00 / 1) (#9)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Feb 19, 2017 at 08:32:31 PM EST
    that Trump wanted to do this or that it was even considered. It didn't even make it to Kelly.

    Trump reportedly weighing use of National Guard

    Boston Globe

    While we're at it, doesn't the state governor have to release the NG to the feds? During Katrina I remember the governor of LA would not turn over command to the feds which led to a lot of back and forth about coordination.


    It's certainly in fitting (5.00 / 2) (#13)
    by jondee on Sun Feb 19, 2017 at 09:42:12 PM EST
    with the manner of rough-hewn thinking of someone who said he wanted to jail women who'd had an abortion.

    I will (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by FlJoe on Mon Feb 20, 2017 at 07:35:14 AM EST
    agree with you, the headline is a bit of hackery(par for the course among headline writers, IMO). They merely shortened the very first line in the story
    The Trump administration considered a proposal....
    which appears to be 100% true.

    Sorry Jim, Trump now owns everything that the executive branch does whether it's from the top down, middle out or bottom up.

    Trump's cries of fake news are merely feeble attempts to "pass the buck", no Harry Truman there for sure.


    Whether Trump owns or doesn't own (1.00 / 1) (#27)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Feb 20, 2017 at 09:02:44 AM EST
    aside the fact remains that the headline is fake.

    Worse, many people will just nod and believe.

    What it is is propaganda by biased reporters designed to try and delegitimize Trump.

    No Harry Truman?? Heck, Obama ran him off 8 years ago.


    And no. I don't want to talk about Katrina. (none / 0) (#10)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Feb 19, 2017 at 08:33:56 PM EST
    That was just an example re NG control.

    Good jim (none / 0) (#23)
    by fishcamp on Mon Feb 20, 2017 at 06:35:34 AM EST
    we don't want you to talk about Katrina

    That is why (none / 0) (#11)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Feb 19, 2017 at 08:42:31 PM EST
    the memo mentions coordination with states regarding the NG.

    Apparently it was something that was considered as DHS had a meeting about it. Anyway at this point any thought of it happening is DOA due to the memo being leaked.


    George W Bush federalized the National Guard (none / 0) (#16)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Feb 20, 2017 at 12:39:45 AM EST
    During the Iraq War. The legislation stands. The President now out commands a governor on National Guard troops. A President does not require a Governor's anything to deploy National Guard troops now from any state and National Guard remain in deployment rotations in the War on Terror though the pace has slowed dramatically.

    That argument might hold during times ... (none / 0) (#18)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Feb 20, 2017 at 03:09:24 AM EST
    ... of international crisis, even if the crisis in Iraq was one manufactured by the late Bush administration.

    But any attempt by the president to mobilize the National Guard for his own ends in order to carry out a controversial domestic policy, will very likely trigger a showdown in federal court to determine the extent of the federal government's authority of a given state's National Guard versus that of its governor.

    I would think that particularly holds true in a state like California, where both a decided majority of the populace and their political leadership are squarely aligned and united in open opposition to the president's stated policy of deporting undocumented immigrants.

    What happens if substantial numbers of California National Guardsmen, and even perhaps whole units, side with Gov. Brown and the State Attorney General, and refuse to comply with the president's directive on moral grounds? That would be a very real possibility here, given prevailing public opinion in their state. Does Trump then court martial them all? Bring in National Guard units from other states to carry out his orders?

    It would certainly be a stretch to argue that any mass deportation of up to 11 million undocumented and mostly Latino immigrants is somehow consistent with our stated policy goals in the so-called "War on Terror."

    Rather, I'd offer that this anti-immigrant initiative is entirely a domestic concern, since it's based upon President* Trump's personal desire to pander to the worst fears and instincts of his increasingly bigoted and irrational political base.

    Both U.S. District Court Judge James Robart of Seattle and the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals only recently rejected the government's argument for its proposed immigration ban based upon a pending threat to national security, noting that there was no real evidentiary grounds for such a contention.

    While I'm not an attorney and wouldn't presume that their ruling is applicable to anything more than the immediate matter that was before them, I'd really like to believe that similar logic would prevail here.



    Heres a (none / 0) (#21)
    by FlJoe on Mon Feb 20, 2017 at 06:09:46 AM EST
    decent take, President Trump's True Power Over the National Guard, Explained

    Apparently the Guard can exist in two modes, normally they are considered "state troops"(albeit funded by the Feds) not covered by Posse Comitas, however they can be at any time be turned into "federal troops" by the President (by decree?) and the law does apply.

    Spicer? (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by MKS on Sun Feb 19, 2017 at 08:42:34 PM EST
    He has no credibility.